Boycott...Target?

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, I gave the matter some thought and I have to say that I agree with the boycott. More so because it shines a light on the new law that lets corporations contribute a lot of money to political campaigns. I don't think corporations should pick our lawmakers. That is, if money equals votes which it seems to some of the time. If anything, it'll give Target some bad press and they'll rethink what was done. No, I don't think it will affect their bottom line, but it will make them pause for a sec. Even though I prefer going to Target, I am reaffirmed in my thinking that no corporation is a saint.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Even though I prefer going to Target, I am reaffirmed in my thinking that no corporation is a saint.

Or even decent, sometimes.

I agree that corporations shouldn't pick our lawmakers and I think the Supremes decision was horrific. Money does equal influence, in a lot of ways. Buys a legislator's time, buys media coverage, that kind of thing. With nobody on the other side to balance it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

More so because it shines a light on the new law that lets corporations contribute a lot of money to political campaigns.

While I agree with the larger point (and disagreed with Citizens United) an important distinction is that it is still against the law in Minnesota for corporations (but not unions and other non-human collectives) to contribute money directly to a state candidates campaign.

What Citizen United did (and Target and others have taken advantage of) is allow corporations unlimited advocacy. They didn't give money to Emmer they spent their own money on their own ads advocating in favor of Emmer. So long as there is no coordination between Target et al. and Emmer it's legal.

That's a slim distinction (though one that worked well to Obama's advantage in '08) but does leave open the door that uncoordinated advocacy will not be to the candidates liking since they'll generally still be held responsible for it (if Target ran an ad saying "Vote for Emmer because he's white" I'm guessing Emmer would be pissed but he couldn't do anything about it).

Finally, even though I think all non-human entities should be barred from direct participation in the political process I can't punish anybody for making use of their rights. I may disagree with the right granted but I don't disagree with the process by which it was achieved. So it just goes on the ledger with all the other personally abhorrent things that people (and corporations) have every right to do.